Today, Explained - This Senator has an Eric Swalwell problem

Episode Date: April 25, 2026

We were set to talk to Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego about solving our immigration crisis. Then Eric Swalwell resigned from Congress. This show was edited by Kasia Broussalian, fact checked by Esther Gim, mixed by Shannon Mahoney, video edited by Christopher Snyder, and hosted by Astead Herndon. Rep. Eric Swalwell and Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz. Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images. You can also watch this episode on youtube.com/vox. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at ⁠vox.com/today-explained-podcast.⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm in Washington, D.C. this week to interview Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego. He's a Democrat from Arizona, but he's been thinking about running for a higher office, and he's been pitching himself as someone who has a new message for Latino voters that can bring them back to the Democratic Party. But Gallego's run into some hot water recently because of his connection to Congressman Eric Swalwell. Eric Swal lied to all of us. My friendship with him. Our family's friendship together with him caught in my judgment.

And I was wrong. I deeply, deeply regret that. This week on America, Actually, we asked Gallego about predatory behavior in Washington, his plans for immigration reform, and more. Let's dig in. Senator Gallego, thank you for joining America, actually. I appreciate your time. I know that there's been some news this week.

I want to get to it later, but I want to start with the premise of why we asked you to come on the show. We've been thinking a lot about topics that you've been talking about, things like immigration, affordability, even the Democrats' outreach to Latino voters. I kind of wanted to start there. Okay. You know, out of the groups that we've seen over the last year, Latinos maybe have the biggest polling shift in terms of backlash against Donald Trump. You represent the swing state with the highest percentage of Latino voters. I wanted to know what you think is driving this backlash to the administration, at least that we see in the numbers. So two things. Number one,

the affordability crisis and number two, immigration, immigration enforcement. The forability crisis, Latinos are probably just also as. affected by the economy as black men. And so when things start going south, that community first feels it first. They're the ones that will get fired first. They're the ones that start losing contracts first. And they don't have much savings to actually kind of like get through these bumps, right?

So if you see the when the economy started going south, here, Latinos had already started moving against the president because they were feeling it first, right? Number two, immigration enforcement. Now, the president had a message in 2020. that if you listened, it said, I want to do mass deportations. And of course, everyone in, you know, D.C. Mind world says, like, well, how do these Latinos not see that? Well, in their mind, in their mind, like, what they're talking about is those people that are coming across the border right now and these massive waves claiming asylum. They weren't thinking that, oh, you're going to go after the person in my neighborhood that's been here for 20 years.

That's a good person that works. And so they rationalized it that that's not going to happen. And then to add the fact that they were racially profiling U.S. citizens has made them turn and turn very, very fast. Yeah, I mean, I think you're isolating a couple of important points. And I've heard you make this kind of case before, particularly that people were more affected to their communities around them than they may have expected from Trump. But, you know, if I think back to how explicit he's been about his targeting of immigrant communities, particularly black and Latino immigrants, I mean, if I think back to the mass deportation now signs at the RNC, How could you not see this coming? It did seem like the explicit promise.

Because I think they didn't want to see it coming. They viewed the asylum seeker crossing the border in those waves as not being part of their community. Right. And I think people kind of forget that, you know, especially Latino communities, long-term Latino communities, did not see the waves of people coming in as being part of their culture, Latino culture. Right. It's not like an inherent collective, right? So it's not some like shared sense of identity.

I think sometimes political discussion groups folks. Exactly. Yeah. And a lot of us knew this and we were trying to tell people this because there was, you know, just to be clear, there was fear from, you know, Democratic consultants, and people around the president that if you do that, you're going to, quote, lose a Latino vote. When we knew, many of us that are very, you know, well connected to the Latino committee,

not just like Latino politicians, that Latinos did not see or identify with that mass migration as being part of their collective idea of who they. Yeah, yeah, I hear you. I mean, that brings us to, I guess, an important point because, you know, what you're talking about is pressure that was on President Biden to not necessarily embrace a stronger border enforcement message that maybe some folks think he should have. But I guess it feels related to the question of what is Democrats' own affirmative position on immigration?

You know, part of the premise of this show was kind of to try to take Donald Trump out the center. And if we do that and think about that specific to immigration, I wanted to ask you, like, What do Democrats stand for when it comes to immigration reform besides just Donald Trump is bad? Number one, we want border enforcement. And, you know, when I ran for office, I led, one of the first commercial I had was in Spanish about border enforcement. A lot of people understand that some people have come to this country illegally. And I think the majority Americans will prefer, super majority would prefer that you come here legally.

But for some reason, you oversee your visa, you cross-cilled, you had family, whatever it is, right? get yourself right with the government get a background check pay a fine get in the back of the line in case there's people that have been doing this right first and then go from there number two we want you to go after bad people good people in bad people out right and so people have criminal records people that have you know are danger to society not just to you know the immigrant community but but to everybody else and then lastly a you know flexible uh and responsive immigration system, right? Because there is going to be times where we are going to need more immigrants to come and do work, do jobs. And sometimes when we don't need immigrants, I think it's okay

as a country to say, you know what, at this point right now, we don't need as many immigrants. We're going to lower the amount of immigration, immigrants and visas that we're giving out, right? That's where Americans are extremely rational on this. It's the politicians, I think, that have really gone one way or the other. It's either absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. And I think that's just not a winning message, nor is that where I am and nor is where most Americans are, especially, by the way, where most Latinos are. Half of all Americans wanted to abolish ICE, according to a recent poll, I just saw, you've called that position ridiculous. I wanted to know why. Because if you actually ask somebody what that means, it's different for everybody else.

If you ask somebody, do you think we still need to have a deportation force in this country? Almost 80% of Americans would say, yes, we need a deportation force because you're going to have to deport. bad people, right? The question that we have to ask is, like, what is a proper force? What are the rights they have? How big should they be? Right. And so, you know, as I say, like, I have to win a red state. There's some people that can just run and say whatever they want and be fine, right? But I have a state where there's 300,000 more registered Republicans and Democrats. We've been severely affected by immigration, right? It is my job to have to explain the nuance in order for me both to win and to get all the Democrats to win in a red state. So do I want to, you know,

totally tear apart ice and maybe we even move different portions, different departments, slim it down because it's so big, it's so bloated, they're going to go after everybody, to restrict them to make sure they can't, they are only going after criminals, and that they're not doing mass deportations? Absolutely. If you tell me, does that mean that ice will not exist? Sure, ice may not exist, but there's always going to be a deportation force, right? And I think it's really incumbent upon people that are running for office to be very clear about that. Because if not, you're really selling a bill of goods to the left

because they're going to want to see something. And also, you're setting yourself up for a major hit, major hit from the right. And in this time and in this world, where elections have consequences, real consequences, your duty is to win an election. I wanted to ask two questions that we got from reporters. We talked to in advance of this interview.

We talked to Caitlin Dickerson, immigration reporter at the Atlantic. And she pointed out how some Senate Democrats, including yourself, supported the Lake and Riley Act in 2025, which gave ICE new powers to keep people in detention. And you've seen so many prominent Democrats go back and forth between assailing even these basic aspects of immigration enforcement when they're done by Trump. And then at other times, in response to what they perceive to be public opinion turning against immigrants, go and vote for very restrictive legislation that makes all these problems. been complaining about worse. I guess that thinking about your kind of message of reforming ice now, did some Democrats like yourself supporting Lake and Riley help empower the same out-of-control ice we see right now? No, I think the $175 billion, the fact that you have Stephen Miller

that's lenient versus the DHS secretaries, you have, you know, Judge Kavanaugh saying racial profiling is allowed. And then just in a general attitude from this administration, they have zero accountability standards, you know, whether it's, you know, investigations, holding people actually accountable, jailing some of these ICE agents, showing masks, showing IDs, things of that nature. That is the actual full scope of what they're doing right now. We also talked to an Arizona reporter locally ahead of today. And one of the things that came up in that conversation, and she was talking about community pushback against data centers, that the construction of data centers has caused some

organizing efforts and caused some resentment against some more establishment politicians who've supported them. So I cover local government a lot. I think it has made people think about how they want government to talk to them and share information with them. That was a big issue here, how the data center was brought forward, that people didn't know about it or didn't share about it publicly. And I didn't see another issue galvanized people at quite the same level in their relationship with local government. You've called data centers a quote, necessary evil. I guess my question is why are they necessary?

Well, two things. The necessary evil does necessarily mean that you can blank check. but the future of this economy, no matter where you are, is going to be driven by AI. The question is, how do we tame it and how we regulate it? If I can find a way to do it at the federal level, we will do it. Number two, there are some areas they shouldn't go because just because they have cheap electricity does not mean that we have cheap water, cheap air, cheap neighborhoods, right? And so we need to give more.

Particularly in a state with water shortages, things like that, yeah. So we need to give more control to the states and to the localities to regulate them. There are places where they should go. It does not necessarily mean it has to be in Arizona. It does not mean it has to be in the cheapest land that these data centers can find. So if I hear you correctly, it's that the question of AI's like centrality in our work economy is, you're saying that's without question. It's important.

And so it's only a choice between whether we proactively tax these data centers or give them a place in our shared economy or focus them on workers rather than what's happening now, which is kind of an untamed wild west. I mean, I guess there just feels like such a big gap between the certainty that, political groups, you know, tech groups, like I would say kind of elite society has about the centrality of AI and people, right? Like, we know that that backlash is driven by a sentiment that folks don't necessarily agree that AI should kind of hold a central place in their lives going forward. I guess so far hasn't really, hasn't, they haven't seen the benefit of it.

So, I mean, I could totally understand that. Right. What they see is their kids, you know, being glued to their phones and then AI lying to them, companies mining their data and selling them. And so, you know, this is something I think both policymakers, but also it's upon the AI industry, they need to show what the benefits are. Because right now, there is no yet massive scale benefit

to society when it comes to AI. We heard Bernie Sanders say to us a couple weeks back that that was a reason for a moratorium on data centers. Why don't you support a moratorium? Well, number one, because I think that we'd fall severely behind. and then we start losing the future wealth, jobs, and growth that comes from AI. Number two, I think states need to lead also. When it comes to zoning, things of that nature.

If we could do it out of federal law, we absolutely should. But it is incumbent upon a lot of states to actually understand what's going on. People do have legitimate arguments. They have legitimate rage. There's areas of Phoenix where it's in the middle of an urban area. They're going to put a data center all because it's cheap land. and they think because it's a black and brown area that they're going to have less pushback. They're just going to do it.

After the break, we speak to Senator Gallego about the recent allegations concerning Congressman Eric Swalwell and how to eliminate predatory behavior in Washington. And just a quick note, we spoke to Gallego prior to Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's formal complaint against him alleging misconduct. A spokesman for Gallego said, quote, these are right-wing conspiracies. Well, we haven't practiced this, but if I asked you right now in this moment, let's say, what is it? You know, spring 2026. Why is it important to support journalism right now?

Well, Sean, the world is a little overwhelming at this moment. There is a lot going on. It can be a little scary. It's also kind of beautiful. And it's worth explaining. Yeah? I would argue, in addition to that, there's a lot of trash information out there. Like, people even want to rely on AI, but,

AI isn't being fact-checked. It's just pulling from a bunch of places. And sometimes you've seen it giving you the wrong information. We fact-check our show. You hear at the end of the show every day who fact-checks the show. We put a lot of effort into making sure that we are bringing you the most accurate information possible. And you can support that effort. That's right. If you believe in the journalism that we do, as much as we do, you can become a Vox member. Vox.com slash members 30% off. Can you believe it? Let's go. Your first year. Sign up now. Thank you. This week on Networth and Chill,

I'm breaking down the institution everyone's talking about right now, but nobody actually understands the Federal Reserve. With all the drama happening between Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, you're probably seeing headlines and wondering what any of this has to do with your money. Spoiler alert, it's everything.

I'll explain what the Fed actually is, why it exists, and how this one institution controls the interest rates on your mortgage, credit cards, student loans, and more. We're diving into why raising or cutting rates isn't just boring policy talk. It's the difference between affording a house or watching prices spiral out of control. Plus, I'm breaking down the current controversy over firing Fed Board members and why both

Republicans and Democrats are freaking out about it because this fight isn't just political theater. It could mean real chaos for your wallet. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com slash you're rich BFF. I don't want to go too much longer without asking about the recent flood of sexual assault allegations against Congressman Eric Swalwell, who had called you his best friend. You chaired his 2020 presidential campaign. You were financially involved in his AI startup. Did you have any knowledge of these allegations of misconduct? Or did you heard rumors of predatory behavior on the Hill?

I wanted to ask you directly. Sure. No clue, no knowledge of any of the allegations or predatory behavior. That was definitely not what. And look, we've all been having conversations since we're all actually going back. Who do you mean by we? Friends, members of Congress, other supporters. We're all talking to each other to see what did we do wrong?

What did we not see? I want to just follow up, though, because it seems as if the scale of the allegations makes that, I guess it causes a gut check on that because it seems as if this was a known thing among someone on the hill. This seems as if certainly there was a community of women who were organizing around this. you hadn't heard any other thing about any of that? Not about the allegations we're talking about, the sexual assault, the predatory behavior.

You know, there is a culture in D.C. That is certainly existing. We're not just him, but many other politicians. We heard of someone that being, you know, flirting, but never inappropriate, never predatory, never towards staff and things of that nature. But look, this is the kind of thing that makes all of us relook at what we have been accepting versus not accepting.

Part of the reason some of the same, has come back on you, though, is that you went out of your way to defend Swalwell just this month, writing recently on X that Eric is a fighter. Considering now what you know, or considering that you're saying you heard him maybe having rumors of being flirty, why proactively defend him? Well, for two reasons, because we had heard this about him, about other politicians for a long time. And nothing had ever surfaced, right? Number two, he exactly knew what to say to me, because I had just gotten off a very hard 2024 campaign where I had some of the worst, you know, things said about me on commercials to tens of millions of dollars that my kids have to see. And they, they and some of his staff,

push that button on me. And it was a mistake. I mean, without a doubt, it was a mistake. Let's be clear. And knowing now everything I know of, we never have done it, but knowing now everything I know, especially of the sexual sexual perpetuity, we would not have had the relationship that we had. There has been some that have said that this is also a question of your judgment. I wanted you to respond to that. I mean, you've been kind of openly embracing the question of a 2028 race. What do you say to someone who says, who looks at this situation and causes that to question you? To be 100 percent, I'm more human first than a politician. And my judgment was off because of many reasons, but number one, because I knew this man, it's a family man first.

We weren't just work colleagues. Our families ate dinner together. Our kids were in camps together. And I have to learn from this, and I will learn from this. But for me, it's not a 2028 question. It's about what it means to be a better first boss in my office and also a better senator to my constituents. I was reading some 2025 texts of yours that were leaked, and in them you complained them about, quote, Democrats not allowing men to be men or women to be hot.

You lamented that Democrats said, quote, are the not fun party and no longer embody things like sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I also recently read a report that you used the F worth the most out of any senator by a wide margin. If I put those two things together, is there something of like a broiness or something that I feel like is a connective tissue in your brand of politics? Or why is it necessary to communicate in that way? It's just how I communicate. It's just how you are. Like, I'm, yes, I went to Harvard, but most of my real collective experience is being in the Marines.

And, you know, and growing up on the side of Chicago, like, and everything, yeah, in every park, Pilsson, every park, back of the yards. I was always surrounded by working class people, right? And working class people, you know, we are rough around the edges. And I think I am representing, I think I'm, you know, just factually just being who I am. But it doesn't mean, again, that, you know, as a human, we should obviously try to improve. And that's what I'm going to try to do. Yeah, I mean, I ask the questions, but I know there's been a big talk.

in democratic politics, it's about the need for authenticity. So, you know, it does feel as if, like, I'm not asking folks to not be who they are, not think that that's something an elect official shouldn't have space to do. I was just wondering about if we, if there's any, like, a reflection about what that means, particularly, you know, as the question of masculinity and its place in democratic politics has become more prominent. There needs to be a way to be masculine without being, you know, what people would consider, toxic.

And I think there has to be a way for Democrats to understand that, you know, men can be part of our coalition. We need to talk to them as like, we want you part of our coalition. A lot of times we de-emphasize men in the Democratic brand, in the Democratic coalition. And, you know, I think there's a way. And this is really talking from my experience running for Senate and running for Congress, where we can, you know, make sure that, you know, women feel that they are protecting our community, that we are, as Democrats, that we are looking out for, you know, their status when it comes to rights, economics, growing the economics, things of that nature, and still also be to do the

same thing with men. I don't think there is any, I don't think they conflate each other or they counteract each other. When you talk to an everyday Latino or African American, even woman, and you tell them, like, you know, I'm going to make sure you have great wages. You know, I want to make sure that, you know, we take care of, you know, maternal deaths, you know, bringing them down. And then you also say, like, and I want to make sure that, you know, young men, especially young black men, young children, they're not doing well, statistically speaking, have an opportunity and they feel that they're part of our society.

They don't see that as like, well, you are de-emphasizing me. For some reason, the voter doesn't see it. For some reason, when it gets kind of up to the top policy level, a consultant level, that doesn't happen. And, like, you know, some of it's like very simple stuff. I remember talking after I won my 2020 for election, some Democrats asked me, how did you do so well with the male vote? And I said, look, we did some things that were,

specifically designed to get the mail vote out, to reach out to them. And, you know, you're like, do you have any ideas? And I, you know, for this one politician, I'm like, yeah, you know, Father's Day is coming up. You should have a Father's Day appreciation brunch all around your district. And that one politician, a swing district, like, I don't think I can do that. I'm like, why can't you do that? I don't understand that. He's like, oh, I'll get hit from the left of you that. I'm like, I don't think that's true. I don't think that's true. Yeah. I think you think you think there's people around you that are, worried about this mythological left that's coming to hit you, but it's not true. And there's this

certain over-level of self-policing that is creating this environment where we're not reaching out to men, and not just black and Latino men, but we don't even approach white men anymore. And I think if we're going to have a national party, if we're going to be able to win in places that we need to win in order for us to even have a chance to ever have the majority again, we have to feel comfortable also reaching out to white men within our own values, but not just be afraid. You know, I too necessarily think that there aren't necessarily spaces, particularly in politics where we talk to men directly and things like that. But sometimes I think there's a difficulty there because the things that men can bond on can sometimes feel like they don't

necessarily seem or look like democratic values, right? Like that, you know, once bonding men could be things that are semi-misogynistic or semi-violent or semi-all-of- those things, even in things like sports culture or things like that. Can Democrats create a space that, in encourages men to come in while retaining their values, you know, I'm saying? Or is the bond between men itself at odds with those values? I think if you're a Democrat, you can't actually go and have those conversations and be authentic enough to actually, you know, create that bond, especially if you have to be misogynistic. It's not going to happen, right?

If it's not in you, it's not in you, nor should you be a Democrat if you're misogynistic. Yeah. Number one. Number two, you do have to accept. that they're not going to be perfect. You, as a politician, need to be near as perfect as possible, right? You have to be able to hold your values and still be able to communicate on the areas that you have agreement with.

Where are those bonds? So, like, I do find the bonds over sports, the sports that I particularly love, you know, for example, boxing is a big thing for me. And when I go to the boxing gyms, when I go to the boxing tournaments, I, you know, hosted a boxing tournament recently, I don't talk politics, right? I'm just there. And a lot of why I do that, not wrong because I love boxing,

but I think the reason it's effective is because the voter doesn't just see me as this elite elected official because of the fact that I'm there with them, right? And I think that that still can happen. I think Democrats, when they feel authentically, you know, excited about any type of sport, should go in sports, go to sports, right?

I get what you're saying, that there's a way that, like, if you just show up to a sport, it as yourself, then, and you don't ask that voter to check off every box on the list, then you're doing that work kind of inherently. And also, but don't do it, don't do it in a campaign season. It also comes off as inauthentic when you're just like, like, all of a sudden, I'm really into, like, you know, the NBA playoffs.

And, like, you've never talked about the NBA playoffs at all. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can certainly feel it when a politician feels like they're dipping into something as a means of outreach or all of a sudden when they all become Iowa fans that, March Madness. Right. But if you feel it, well, nobody. That's the problem.

If you look at, you know, Donald Trump goes to UFC fights, because I think he actually does like UFC fights, right? But he also used that smartly to get into the streams. A lot of men that were basically not following politics. You know, he did it just recently. In the middle of a war, he goes to a UFC fight with Marco Rubio and sits down and does it. And does it for two reasons. Number one, he knows his numbers are lagging with Latinos horribly,

with Latino men especially. What are they watching right now? It's not CNN. It's not even CNN-Spaniel. Sorry, CNN-Spanio. I love you guys. But this is it happening right now, yeah. But they are watching UFC. But that's definitely the thought process. I wanted to end kind of thinking about openly, which is a decision process, about thinking about run for president, about 2028. I referenced it a little bit earlier. You just got to the Senate in 2024. I wanted to know how did you go from that point of that arrival to getting to this type of open decision-making process? What was it in those steps in the way that made you say, Hey, maybe I should take a step up here. Well, number one is I, again, and had many decisions and we're very far from any decisions. Yeah. The most important thing, constitutional thing right now is that we need to win elections, right? Democrats, we need to both win in 2026 and 28, really to and hold to be able to change the direction of this country.

And the direction of this country is not going to be going well if we are stuck with, Republicans in power or being able to obstruct because they're still going to have control over the Supreme Court. They could still have a lot of strength within the Senate, even if we take out of the House and have the White House. I get that, but I'm saying the question of what is the unique lane and unique voice that you think you're bringing to that discussion that can't be replicated maybe by others around you.

Do you think there's one? Well, I certainly think that I have a unique lane, especially when it's coming to working class people, Latinos. you know, veterans, can other people replicate that? Maybe that's why you have all these years to figure that out. That's why you have campaigns and stuff of that. I don't think, yeah, I'm certainly not naive or conceited enough to think that I am the only person that could win this, right?

That's not how the world works. We certainly will make a decision, first of all, based on my family situation, but secondly, based on, you know, do I fill a particular niche that can't be filled by someone else that can assure a victory for the Democratic Party? I've always wondered about those family talks. Like, you mentioned your children. How old are your children? Nine, almost three, and ten months.

I can't imagine, you know, being those age and my parents sits down and says, hey, you think I should run for president or not? You think I should run for a public campaign. You talk to your wife. That's a guess, yeah, yeah, yeah, let's be clear. No, you're talking to your wife. And because, and look, I just got off a campaign where, you know, my poor wife started the campaign pregnant, ended the campaign pregnant with two different kids. That's how long the campaign was.

And they're the ones that actually shoulder the burden of this. And so you first have to talk to them. And then you also have to make decisions about what are you willing to give up? And when I say what you're willing to give up is when you have young kids, you're giving up some memories that may not bother them, but it will bother you. And, you know, if you're thinking about what do you want to remember on your deathbed, it's not going to a rally. It's not going to a fundraising dinner.

It's like, I got to see my kids recital. I got to go to my kids, you know, a little league game. I got to take my kids on vacation, not be bothered by people. people around me or anything else like that. You know, for someone like me, it does, does bother me. Like, I grew up without a dad. And I kind of want to have the, still have the full experience of being a debt. Senator Gallego, thank you so much for joining us.

Yeah, thanks for time. America actually will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in politics or culture. You can also watch these episodes every week on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube.com slash Vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a Vox member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week, and they also make our work possible. Just go to Vox.com slash members to join.

This show was edited by Kasha Brasolian, fact-checked by Esther Gim, and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Christopher Snyder is our video editor, and Kuhnui is our senior art director. Our executive producer is Christina Vallis, and our theme music is from Breakmaster Cylinder. Additional support for Miranda, David Tadashore, and Nisha Chittal. I'm Asned Hearnden, and this is a great man. This is America actually.